Your political views....

Post Reply New Topic

You have to recognize that I have not actually had a minimum wage job since the new minimum wage kicked in.

The last low-skill job I had was data entry for a library and it was $9.68 an hour, and mostly held by young adults, and it was just repetitively filling in a spreadsheet.

I suppose another job I had was actually a job with training, so it is hard to say whether it is unskilled (you didn't have to have the skills to take the job) or what to call it, but it was $8 dollars an hour, I think.

The lowest job I had was $7 an hour, and this was before the new minimum wage laws came into existence.

That's actually incredibly shocking because everything you have written has tended to express ideas that are highly socially conservative and highly economically oriented towards regulation. And this is consistent.


You mean as a general rule you are in favor of government intervention. If you disagree, then please, tell me some issues where deregulation and tax removal and all of that are really concerns for you.


My statement WAS polemical.

That being said, I don't take your position to be that of an "objective moral standard". Even libertarians can talk about objective moral standards, so.... it does not follow.


Right, and that makes the economy you are working with odd in the international scale. Frankly, given that most of what I read about focuses on Continental Europe and the first world Americas, this makes explanation very difficult, because it seems likely that there are some factors in the supply and demand over in the overall market structure that may be playing a critical role in how this all works, but without going into depth, the first response is going to be based upon the basics of microeconomic theory.

Following those basics of microeconomics, many of my positions make sense, with the outliers needing further study for understanding.

@AG

You asked me for some economic policies that favor low taxes and deregulation.

I am in favor of the floated dollar, tax cuts on business startups, removing incentives that make planting crops of wine grapes (this is quite an issue where I live) tax deducatle, thereby lowering the price and driving out local farmers. I am also against cap gains taxes on first homebuyers. So altogether I am not particularly economically interventionist, by the standards of where I live.

Actually, those are really very minor issues, and ones that many more interventionist people can agree upon. All you really want is just a better tax structure with very specific alterations. I don't really see this as broad-enough to get to your point of being relatively libertarian where you live, especially given that by stronger libertarian standards, the very selectiveness of your alterations IS interventionist.

The floated dollar is the most libertarian of those policies really, but the floated dollar is also just a common policy anyway.

^^^^

That's an interesting response to an attempt at reaching middle ground. Considering you seem to attack, literally, everything I am posting recently, I can only interpret this statement within your wider pattern of belligerence. Your actions have now crossed into the realm of the absurd.

Well... the thing is that usually when a person is thinking of "non-interventionist" they aren't thinking of highly specific changes in the tax structure, but rather they are thinking about broader issues, like "I think corporate taxes should be reduced", "I think the tax code should be flatter", "I advocate reduced spending", "I advocate deregulating a number of industries", "I advocate privatizing a number of industries". The changes you advocate tell me almost nothing about how you are politically non-interventionist because anybody can advocate highly specific changes like that, especially given that the net result is going to be almost neutral on tax revenue.

That being said, read me however you want, because that's what you are going to do anyway.

I have only one broad economic policy 'I think all broad fix all economic policies are terrible'.

Well, this is kind of middle ground for me.(at least on here). So, I think that Nigel Farage is typically the Churchill of British modern politics, meaning he is typically the sort of war cabinet leader we have owing to cryptic and civil unrest on our islands and shores. Of course, he is very good with numbers, and was once a broker.
Can you trust a man who was once a broker? maybe.. the answer should be yes.

I am fiscal conservative
almost Libertarian in some ways
Traditionalist for child rearing/family unit with or without a religion involved
Constitutionalist FIRST
I am progressive but not liberal on social policy and warm to them if efficient plan to fund them could be created
But in the end if I had to choose, I rather be charitable in my own neighborhood and risk a few falling thru cracks than bigger more powerful central govt (ours is already too big)

I chose conservative since it is party structure that hits the most points.

Just slightly more on the liberal side.

To the OP. Include at least one more choice. Make a box for libertarian.

Libertarian here, is like middle of the road for fiscal studies, not evolutionary statistics. The thought that that there would be any debate for a mid rise sanction on rebates through the fiscal studies of the left, means that our central government has lost its power to govern home economics effectively.

None of the above options. I can no longer put myself inside any label. I am slightly middle-road/live and let be on abortion, sexuality, and drugs (but I'm personally anti-drugs), I'm right-wing on national and immigration issues, and I support clean energies. I live in the USA.

Socialist.

Also a socialist. Not an option in the poll.

Not from this planet, no label. All possibilities suck because it's not the systems that suck it's the use of it, and humans are materially unable to behave without being monitored. And saying while not exactly being a government dreamer.